Three importers found to have evaded antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese glycine told the Court of International Trade that CBP has failed to offer any evidence of direct evasion of the orders. The importers, Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave Co., said in a brief last week that all three categories of evidence relied on by CBP amount to "nothing more than speculation" (Newtrend USA Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00347).

The Commerce Department didn’t err in applying adverse facts available to exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret for a subsidy program that the agency only became aware of due to a letter from the exporter it rejected as untimely, the U.S. and petitioner Rebar Action Coalition said Feb. 21 in two briefs opposing the exporter's motion for judgment (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #24-00096).

Three parties in a sprawling dispute over Canadian lumber each replied Feb. 21 to the U.S. argument that Loper Bright doesn't apply to judicial review of the Commerce Department’s administrative review of Canadian softwood lumber (see 2502140050) (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187).

The International Trade Commission improperly found that the U.S. industry was injured by shrimp imports and not by "conditions of competition unrelated to imports," a trade group for Indian shrimp exporters told the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 complaint. The trade group, the Seafood Exporters Association of India, also alleged that cooked frozen shrimp products "must be considered a separate like product distinct from uncooked frozen shrimp products" (Seafood Exporters Association of India v. United States, CIT # 25-00031).

Importer Outokumpu Stainless Steel brought a Feb. 20 complaint to the Court of International Trade alleging CBP had wrongly failed to correct the country of origin designated on 173 of its entries, resulting in the importer being assessed Section 232 tariffs (Outokumpu Stainless USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00047).

Eteros has not shown good cause for an expedited scheduling order in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the company received a favorable ruling at the Court of International Trade in a case on imports of marijuana paraphernalia, the U.S. told the trade court on Feb. 24. The government also said it's likely that CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the matter, indicating that it soon will file a motion to dismiss the case (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade upheld on Feb. 25 the Commerce Department's inclusion of Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce was entirely in line when it considered a prior scope ruling asked for by Precision and concluded that the products at issue in the prior scope ruling were identical to the products considered in the subsequent scope case.

Responding to a petitioner (see 2412300009), the U.S. said Feb. 21 that two mandatory respondents in a countervailing duty review of chlorinated isoscyanurates from China hadn’t earned an adverse inference for failing to provide the Commerce Department land-use contracts that would show they hadn’t been granted land for less-than-adequate remuneration (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT # 24-00118).

U.S. activated carbon producers Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit Americas brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 21 claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly accepted an antidumping duty order administrative review mandatory respondent’s allegation of a ministerial error. The allegation actually concerned “a methodological issue, not a ministerial issue,” they said (Calgon Carbon Corporation v. United States, CIT # 25-00028).